FAIT Committee Report

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Canadian Alliance Dissenting Opinion on Committee Report

The Canadian Alliance supports the principal declared objective of NEPAD — that of linking increased western aid to Africa with concrete measures on the part of African countries to open markets, to end corruption and to build democracy and the rule of law.

History clearly shows that those societies, which embrace these principles, are most apt to see an improvement in the standard of living for its citizens.

We also appreciate the fact that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has gone a considerable way to modify the original first draft of the report. We applaud the constructive and open dialogue between Committee members in working toward a unified position.

However, there remain aspects of the Report to which the Official Opposition cannot agree. These are:

1    The Fiscal Dimension

The Committee calls on Canada to work toward putting 0.7% of Canada’s GDP into foreign development assistance. Were this recommendation to be implemented it would involve nearly tripling Canada’s present level of development assistance. This is unrealistic for several reasons in that it:

i)     is fiscally unattainable given the other foreign and domestic spending priorities of
       the Government of Canada;

ii)     suggests that a Government-led approach involving large-scale public expenditure
        remains the best way to promote international development. Market access to the
        developing world is a more realistic and better approach to assist those in need.;
        and,

iii)    ignores the Auditor General’s report of October 2000 which indicates that there are
        serious problems with the way aid is presently being delivered and administered. In
        that report, the Auditor General notes that CIDA’s own tracking of "results" is totally
        inadequate. The Official Opposition sought to address this problem in a motion to
        Committee on May 28th, calling for clear guidelines for the distribution of CIDA
        grants as well as a mandatory independent annual audit of all CIDA grants.
        Although this motion was rejected by the majority of members on the Committee,
        the committee did approve another motion suggesting a review process starting in
        September. This process should not be preceded by an expensive policy position
        which has debatable outcomes and no public reporting process of results.

2    NEPAD accountability

It is the view of the Official Opposition that Canada’s entire approach to the delivery of development assistance needs to be reviewed. We believe the balance between the role played by Government and that played by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) should be rethought. It is vital to adequately account for all Canadian aid dollars and to also hold recipient states accountable for democratic reforms. The Official Opposition will present its own paper on International Development Assistance taking new challenges and opportunities offered by globalization, NEPAD, and HIPC Initiatives.

In this regard, we have concerns that a "peer review" alone of NEPAD will not lead to democratic and human rights abuses (such as in Zimbabwe and elsewhere) being vigorously addressed by African leaders. A more objective accountability mechanism is required. We have further concerns that certain committee recommendations (such as Recommendation 2 which prohibits "user fees") may ignore local wishes by completely closing the door to citizen or private sector funding which local citizens may deem important.

3    Compelling Concerns of Canadians not Highlighted

The G8 Summit was designed, first and foremost, as an economic meeting to discuss common economic and trade challenges among the world’s leading industrialized nations. However, somehow, over the years that agenda has been sidetracked.

Given the scope of agricultural, softwood lumber and other trade threats that Canadians are confronted with today, we expect the Government of Canada, as host of the G-8, to make foreign protectionism and subsidies a top priority.

4    Neglect of Canadian Interests with NEPAD Partners

The Prime Minister has identified certain countries in Africa as Canadian partners in promoting the NEPAD agenda. However, some of these countries, though they may receive large amounts of Canadian development assistance, have not been particularly responsive to Canadian calls for internal democratic and rule of law reforms.

While the Prime Minister has stated that investment will only flow to countries that observe the rule of law, it seems that both Canadian aid dollars and political attention will continue to be devoted to countries regardless of their failure to meet accepted international rule of law and anti-corruption standards. This undermines the very goals of NEPAD itself.

5   Late timing of report impairs effectiveness

A further major problem with this report is that it is being presented far too late to seriously impact on any aspect of the Summit. This is not a fault of either the members of the Committee or the Committee’s staff. To a large extent, the pre-summit consultations between governments are already complete and the agenda for the summit has been set. To be effective, a parliamentary committee report from the most junior member of the G8 should have been produced long before a few weeks prior to the conference itself. Unfortunately this was not done. This means that once again, a Canadian parliamentary committee will produce a report that may have diminished impact on the Government of Canada. We will watch to see how effectively the Committee’s concerns are dealt with.